Josephine V. Yam

Sustainable Development: Intersection of Economy & Environment

It is crucial that you get the attention of the "people who hold the purse strings", namely Finance Ministers, if you want countries to strategically move towards sustainable development, said Rachel Kyte, World Bank VP for Sustainable Development, In her blog "Why Finance Ministers Care About Climate Change & Sustainable Development",

She said that climate change was front and centre of discussions among the world's Finance Ministers at their annual World Bank/IMF Spring Meeting in Washington this weekend. Climate change "isn’t just an environmental challenge, it’s a fundamental threat to economic development and the fight against poverty... If the world does not take bold action now, a disastrously warming planet threatens to put prosperity out of reach for millions and roll back decades of development."

Fortunately, there has been great progress around the world in the fight against climate change. For example, an increasing number of countries have or are in the process of establishing their carbon markets to link with each other and put a price on carbon. This market-based approach will effectively help drive greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) down and spur clean energy investments. Through the Partnership for Market Readiness (PMR) established by the World Bank, countries around the world explore innovative and cost-efficient ways to drive down GHGs while building financial flows.

Indeed, it is crucial to have had that discussion among the Finance Ministers, to discuss with them that the fight against climate change is a win-win proposition for both their countries' valuable environments and value-based economies.

U.S., China Forge Historic Deal on Climate Change

"Groundbreaking" is the appropriate word to describe the United States - China deal recently forged to jointly combat climate change. Being the world’s two biggest economies and greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters, their monumental “call to action” to reduce GHGs will be undertaken "by advancing cooperation on technology, research, conservation, and alternative and renewable energy."

The National Post article reported that this deal was reached during U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's visit to China this weekend. Kerry is known to be a staunch advocate for advancing U.S. policies on GHG reduction and climate change.

The U.S.-China joint statement forcefully enunciated that both countries “consider that the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding climate change constitutes a compelling call to action crucial to having a global impact on climate change.” Moreover, they recognize that an “urgent need to intensify global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions… is more critical than ever” and believe that “such action is crucial both to contain climate change and to set the kind of powerful example that can inspire the world.”

Noted Alden Meyer, representative for the Union of Concerned Scientist in the United States: By “pledging to set the kind of powerful example that can inspire the world," both countries "raise expectations" that they "will move more forcefully to confront the threat of climate change."

Yet, as we all know, the devil will surely be in the details. So we wait in anticipation as the U.S. and China discuss the details of this historic deal in an upcoming Strategic and Economic Dialogue meeting later this July.

The Accelerated Growth of Carbon Markets

"Right now, the carbon markets of the future are under construction in all corners of the world", enthused Rachel Kyte, Vice President of Sustainable Development at the World Bank, in a recent Huffington Post article.

According to Kyte, at least 35 countries, 18 sub-national jurisdictions in the U.S. and Canada, and 7 Chinese cities and provinces will eventually be launching their own carbon markets to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).

For example, China has vocally expressed its resolute determination to use the "magic of the market" of emissions trading as a way of greening its robust economy. The Chinese government believes that the creation of its own national carbon emissions market will serve as a very efficient strategy to achieving a sustainable green economy.

The linking of carbon markets with one another is crucial to achieving cost efficiencies in reaching a global carbon price for carbon credits. To this end, the World Bank established the Partnership for Market Readiness (PMR) in 2011, which has brought together over 30 developed and developing countries to consolidate their efforts in creating market-based instruments for GHG emissions reduction, including the creation of emissions trading schemes. Indeed, this bottom-up approach may prove to be a more effective way to successfully combat climate change.

US is Global Leader in Cutting Greenhouse Gas Emissions

In his New York Times article, "A Model for Reducing Emissions", Eduardo Porter reports that the US has cut its CO2 emissions by almost 13 percent since 2007. The Americans have reduced their total energy use in the past 5 years by 5 percent. Surprisingly, this reduction is likely the most substantial GHG cut among developed countries and even more than what Europe has achieved.

The most compelling driver for the incredible decline in CO2 spewing is neither regulation nor increased citizenry initiatives to combat climate change. It is simply the interplay of market forces: low energy prices and technological innovation. In other words, the reasons are economic, not political.

Undeniably, the depressed economy has caused the lower production of goods and services, which in turn has decreased the Americans' use of energy. But a breakthrough in hydraulic fracturing of shale rocks has also produced massive amounts of cheap natural gas, which is significantly cleaner than coal. This in turn has caused electric utilities to switch from coal to natural gas, increasing the latter's overall proportion from 21 percent to 30 percent of total electricity produced from power plants.

Will these market forces continue to bring into fulfillment President Obama's goal of cutting CO2 emissions by 17 percent by 2020? Maybe. But until there is a carbon price that internalizes the escalating environmental damage and climate threat that carbon imposes on humanity, only then will there be a genuine driver that effectively dampens massive CO2 spewing.

A Case for Clean Subsidies

In his Harvard Business Review article entitled “The Case for Clean Subsidies”, James Bacchus argues that the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO) should be amended to create an exemption for green energy. These type of exemptions are not new. Many years ago, exemptions that helped achieve ”new environmental requirements” were agreed upon during the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations for subsidies. Unfortunately, these exemptions expired in 2000.

Due to the proliferation of governmental subsidies for clean energy worldwide, Bacchus notes that international trade disputes over green energy have been noticeably accelerating at the WTO. This is because these type of subsidies “distort trade by lowering costs for local manufacturers, thus reducing access to local markets for foreign companies and giving local manufacturers an unfair advantage in exporting to other markets.”

Yet, because fossil fuels are so much cheaper than renewable energy and and because greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from fossil fuels are accelerating climate change, market forces cannot be relied upon to determine the world’s future energy use. Verily, there is far more at stake than a simple price tag.

While imposing a carbon tax that puts a price on carbon could be effective, such initiative could be politically unworkable. Thus, he proposes that “the only practical political alternative for producing renewable energy competitively seems to be subsidies” because they “ease the necessary shift to low-carbon economies”. However, these subsidies cannot succeed so long as the WTO rules make them illegal under international law. Consequently, amending the WTO rules to make an exemption for green subsidies appears imperative in order to successfully address climate change.

Norway Sets One of World’s Highest Carbon Tax Rates

The International Herald Tribune recently reported that Norway is set to almost double its CO2 tax rate for offshore oil and gas production beginning in January 2013. Indeed, the Norwegian government is setting one of the highest carbon tax rates in the world by increasing the CO2 tax rate from 210 Norwegian Krone (about €28) to 410 Krone (about €55) per ton of CO2. A substantial part of the newly generated tax revenue will go into the government’s investments in clean energy, the environment and public transportation.

Many have lauded Norway’s sharp increase in carbon taxes for energy producers as exemplary. “The higher the tax, the more aggressive a signal the government is going to send about the need to lower carbon emissions,” said Janet Milne, a director of the Vermont Law School’s Environmental Tax Policy Institute. “You have to get fairly high carbon tax rates in order to get a significant long-term change in behavior,” she said.

“The EU prefers a system that taxes more of what we burn and less of what we earn. If we want to consume less energy, we need a smarter way of taxing,” said Isaac Valero-Ladron, the EU Spokesman for Climate Action.

According to the Australian Climate Commission, by 2013, 33 countries and 18 states and provinces (referred to as "sub-national jurisdictions") will have some sort of levy associated with the emission of CO2.

Designing Carbon Pricing: Questions that Policymakers Should Address

In its 2012 publication entitled "Fiscal Policy to Mitigate Climate Change: A Guide for Policymakers", the International Monetary Fund (IMF) stated that revenue-raising carbon pricing is the instrument that effectively addresses climate change. It noted that carbon pricing can either be in the form of carbon taxes or cap-and-trade systems with allowance auctions. What is crucial is that it is well-designed in terms of comprehensively covering emissions.

Thus, in designing carbon pricing legislation, the IMF suggested that policymakers give due consideration to the following questions:
  • How strong is the case for carbon pricing instruments over regulatory approaches (e.g., standards for energy efficiency or mandates for renewables)? How do carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems compare? What might be some promising alternatives if “ideal” pricing instruments are not viable initially?
  • How is a carbon pricing system best designed in terms of covering emissions sources, using revenues, overcoming implementation obstacles (e.g., by dealing with competitiveness and distributional concerns), and possibly combining them with other instruments (e.g., technology policies)? How might pricing policies be coordinated across different countries?
  • How should policymakers think about the appropriate level of emissions pricing?
  • How important is inclusion of the forest sector in carbon pricing schemes? How feasible is this in practice?
  • What should be the priorities for developing economies in terms of fiscal reforms to reduce emissions?
  • From the perspective of raising funds from developed economies to fund climate projects in developing economies, what are the most promising fiscal instruments? How should they be designed?
  • What lessons can be drawn from experience with emissions pricing programs, like the European Emissions Trading System (ETS) or the various carbon tax programs to date?

The IMF argued that the choice between carbon taxes and emissions trading systems is generally less crucial than implementing one of them and getting the design details right. What is important is that carbon pricing must comprehensively cover emissions and avoid wasting its revenue potential by granting free allowance allocations in cap-and-trade systems or allocating revenues for unimportant policy outcomes.

EU Inclusion of Airline Emissions triggers International Law Dispute

The brewing international controversy of airline emissions being included in the EU ETS highlights one of the risks of the EU unilaterally imposing a carbon market on its member countries while China, US and other major economies do not have their own carbon markets, as reported in the New York Times.

The Law

The European initiative, which was effective on January 1, 2012, involves folding aviation into the six-year-old emissions trading system, in which polluters can buy and sell a limited quantity of permits, each representing a ton of carbon dioxide. The law requires airlines to account for their emissions for the entirety of any flight that takes off from — or lands at — any airport in the EU bloc. While airlines landing or taking off in Europe are included in the EU ETS beginning January 1, 2012, they do not have to start paying anything until April 2013.

The goal of this European initiative is to speed up the adoption of greener technologies at a time when air traffic, which represents about 3 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, is growing much faster than gains in efficiency.

Consequences of the Law

Airlines will have to buy 15 percent of their emissions certificates at auction. Carbon emissions from planes will initially be capped at 97 percent of the 2004-2006 levels. The emissions rules apply from the moment an aircraft begins to taxi from the gate, either en route to or from a European airport, and they cover emissions for the flight from start to finish — not just the portion that occurs in European airspace.

Why the EU went ahead with the Law

Governments and airlines have been in negotiations for more than a decade over the creation of a global cap-and-trade system under the auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a U.N. agency that handles global aviation matters. The organization’s 190 member countries passed a resolution in 2010 committing the group to devising a market-based solution, though without a fixed timetable. Impatient with the pace of those talks, the European Commission moved ahead with its own plan, which was passed two years ago with the support of national governments and the European Parliament.

Airline Industry Raise Vehement Objections

Some 26 countries, including China, Russia and the United Countries, formally showed their dissatisfaction with the European system — a move that heralds a possible commencement of a formal dispute procedure at the ICAO. They have questioned whether this EU directive is invalid. Their arguments include the following:

1) Why the requirements apply to emissions from the entire flight, not just the portion that occurs within EU airspace?

2) In applying its environmental legislation to aviation activities in third countries' airspace and over the high seas, the E.U. has violated fundamental and well-established principles of customary international law.

3) The EU's actions infringe on the notion that each nation has sovereignty over its territory, a universally recognized principle of international law

4) By acting unilaterally, the European Union also breached international obligations that require such matters to be resolved by consensus under the auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a U.N. agency that handles global aviation matters.

China's Reaction

China announced that its carriers would be forbidden to pay any charges under the European emissions system without Beijing’s permission. It also threatened retaliation, such as impounding European aircraft, if the EU punishes Chinese airlines for not complying with its emissions trading scheme. In fact, this dispute halted China's purchase of Airbus planes worth up to $14 billion. However, during Chancellor Angela Merkel’s visit to Beijing last August, China signed an agreement with Germany for 50 Airbus planes worth over $4 billion.

U.S. Reaction

The U.S. Senate recently passed a bill that would protect U.S. airlines from paying for their carbon emissions on European flights. Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill said that “Americans shouldn’t be forced to pay a European tax when flying in U.S. airspace.” The U.S. bill increases pressure on the ICAO to formulate a global alternative to the EU law.

EU Response to China and the other countries

The EU posits that the ETS is not a charge or a tax but a cap-and-trade system. Its defense includes the following claims:

1) The purpose of our legislation is to reduce emissions, not make money.

2) Including aviation in the ETS is "fully consistent with international law" because the EU is not seeking to extend its authority outside of its airspace.

3) However, given the complaints of China and other countries, the EU could suspend parts of a new law requiring airlines to account for their greenhouse gas emissions if countries were to make clear progress this year toward establishing a global emissions control system

The EU Commission said that the EU would only repeal or amend the law if there was an international deal to tackle emissions from planes, which account for less than 3 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

World's Largest Carbon Market: Linking Australian & EU Emissions Trading Systems

Last week, the Australian Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Greg Combet, and the European Commissioner for Climate Action, Connie Hedegaard announced that Australia and the European Union (EU) will be linking their emissions trading systems.

Commissioner Hedegaard said: "We now look forward to the first full international linking of emission trading systems. This would be a significant achievement for both Europe and Australia. It is further evidence of strong international cooperation on climate change and will build further momentum towards establishing a robust international carbon market."

Minister Combet said: "Linking the Australian and European Union systems reaffirms that carbon markets are the prime vehicle for tackling climate change and the most efficient means of achieving emissions reductions."

A link between emissions trading systems allows companies in one system to use units from another system for compliance purposes. The advantages of linking include:

  • reducing the cost of cutting carbon pollution because enterprises will have access to more and lower cost emissions abatement units;
  • increasing market liquidity, which in turn offers a more stable carbon price signal;
  • increasing business opportunities to trade because companies with excess units will have access to more buyers and companies that need more units can purchase them from a wider range of sellers; and
  • supporting global cooperation on climate change.

A full two-way link between the EU and Australian cap-and-trade systems will start by July 1, 2018. Under this arrangement, private industry will be able to use carbon units from the Australian emissions trading scheme or the EU Emissions Trading System for compliance under either system.

An interim link between the two systems will be established allowing Australian businesses to use EU allowances to help meet liabilities under the Australian emissions trading scheme from July 1, 2015 until the full link is operational in 2018.

According to the EU website, this linking arrangement “represents the first step towards linking the established carbon market in Europe with developing carbon markets in the Asia Pacific. Together, the linked Australian and European emissions trading systems will be the world’s largest carbon market and a major driver of the global transition to a low carbon economy.”

2012 Energy and Climate Outlook

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change recently published its 2012 Energy and Climate Outlook report (the “2012 Outlook”). The goal of 2012 Outlook is to improve public understanding of the global environment and energy challenges that our world faces, especially in meeting the needs of a projected population of 10 billion people by 2100. It provides solid research that underlies the tight correlation between human endeavours and environmental change.

One of the many significant findings set out in the 2012 Outlook refers to emission targets that G20 nations made at the 2009 Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen. While those Copenhagen targets begin a transition to alternative energy in developed countries and China, they do not provide sufficient incentive to create the full transformation needed within the energy system to stop dangerous levels of climate change. Such necessary transformation envisions wide-scale adoption of renewables, carbon capture and storage, nuclear or alternative propulsion systems in vehicles.

Another significant finding is that while emissions from fossil fuels are huge, other greenhouse gas and land use emissions are also primordial and need to be addressed in order to achieve more stringent stabilization and temperature goals. If policies to reduce them fail, a major opportunity to limit climate change may be missed.

The report concludes: “[T]he Copenhagen pledges do not take us very far in the energy transformation ultimately needed to avoid the risk of dangerous warming. Even if policy efforts in developed countries are successful in holding emissions constant, the emission increases of other nations – growing and industrializing – will contribute to further increases in greenhouse gas concentrations and climate change.”

The full text of 2012 Outlook can be accessed at this link. http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/Outlook2012.pdf

Offsets as Imperative for Canada’s Competitiveness

I believe that Environment Canada should include offsets (Certified Emission Reductions - CERs) as one of the compliance mechanisms for a future Canadian cap and trade scheme. This is because Canada will need a suite of flexible mechanisms, like offsets, that will enable Canadian firms to choose from a buffet of cost-containment options in order to maintain competitiveness.

Sec. 2.4 of the ISSD report notes: “The overall societal cost of carbon policies can be significantly reduced with the use of offsets as a compliance mechanism. Average offset prices of existing systems reviewed were found to be in the range of 42 per cent to 89 per cent less expensive than other compliance options.”

The feature of offsets as a mechanism that reduces compliance cost is very significant for Canada’s overall competitiveness. This is because one key aspect of Canada’s climate policy is its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions growth.

According to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE) report, Canada is projected to have a faster, higher emissions growth relative to the US. This relatively faster emissions growth in Canada implies a greater level of effort and consequent higher carbon prices to reduce emissions and meet the stated targets of Canada. Moreover, Canada’s industrial emissions account for a much higher share of overall GHG emissions. This is because of the higher emissions intensity of Canada’s industrial sectors, particularly the mining and oil and gas extraction sectors, which have shown strong growth in the past decade and are predicted to continue growing substantially. For example, industrial emissions are forecast to account for nearly 50 % of total GHG emissions in Canada in 2030 (as juxtaposed to around 15 % of total GHG emissions in the US

Thus, given the greater effort that Canada needs to reduce its total GHG emissions and the fact that 50% of such total GHG emissions comes from its industrial sectors, then it is imperative for Environment Canada to enable such industries to use offsets so that they can meet their compliance obligations in a cost-effective manner. In failing to do so, Environment Canada will stifle the opportunity of inudstries to find low-cost options, to the detriment of the Canadian economy and Canadian end-users.

Reference:
National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. (2011). Climate Prosperity, Parallel Paths: Canada – US Climate Policy Choices, Report 03, 1-160.

Carbon Finance: To Trade or Tax?

There are a lot of features of a Carbon Tax that make it an effective economic-incentive approach to address climate change:

  1. Carbon taxes lend predictability to energy prices. This allows for strategic decision-making involving energy to be made will full awareness of the carbon–appropriate price signals, whether it is design of new electricity generating plants to the purchase of the family car.
  2. Carbon taxes will provide quicker results. The taxes themselves can be designed and adopted quickly and fairly.
  3. Carbon taxes are transparent and are easier to understand than Cap & Trade. The government simply imposes a tax per ton of carbon emitted, which is easily translated into a tax per kWh of electricity or gallon of gasoline.
  4. Carbon taxes address all sectors and activities producing carbon emissions. They target carbon emissions in all sectors such as energy, industry and transportation.

Indeed, the three-letter word called “tax” can spell political suicide for some governments, especially in the midst of this global financial crisis. Thus, some governments may not be bold enough to espouse it as a strategic policy tool to fight climate change.

Written: 2011 November
References:

The Issue of Double Counting in the Monitoring and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (MRG)

There is a complexity inherent in MRGs, especially in respect of consistency of reported information. One related issue relates to international offsets and double counting.

The issue revolves around the following questions:

How will offsets be accounted for in reporting and reviewing countries’ progress toward meeting their emission-reduction targets under the Cancun Agreement? Will both developed (buyer) and developing (seller) countries be able to count emission reductions from offset projects towards their respective pledges? Or will only the buyers get to count them, as is currently the case under the Kyoto Protocol and domestic emissions trading systems?

Currently, there is uncertainty in the existing agreements. Most countries have not taken an official position on what they would be doing.

A Stockholm Environment Institute paper and policy brief entitled “The Implications of International Greenhouse Gas Offsets on Global Climate Mitigation” addressed this issue when the paper was presented at a carbon markets and accountability seminar hosted by the OECD and the International Energy Agency in April 2011.

The paper concluded that the use of international offsets, if counted both by the supplying (developing) and buying (developed) country, could effectively reduce the ambition of current pledges by up to 1.6 billion tons CO2e in 2020. It suggested that the current pledges could significantly fall 10% lower than the total abatement required to stay on a path consistent with limiting warming to 2°C. The paper assumed that each ton of offset credit represents a ton of emissions benefit. To the extent that offsets do not represent real, additional reductions, then the effective dilution of pledges could be even greater.

It would be highly beneficial if this double counting issue of international offsets is settled uniformly across the EU and globally in order to preserve the environmental integrity of the EU ETS and the upcoming emission trading systems around the world.

Written: 2012 March
Reference: Stockholm Environment Institute, “The Implications of International Greenhouse Gas Offsets on Global Climate Mitigation (2011)

What are the advantages and disadvantages of catastrophe bonds?

Advantages

  • Catastrophe bonds have less credit risk because the total amount of funds which can be called by the (re)insurer if a catastrophe occurs are placed in trust. In contrast, reinsurers do not hold funds equal to their maximum exposure, and thus reinsurers have insolvency risk.
  • Catastrophe bonds also reduce agency costs relative to equity capital, because the funds raised from the bond issue are placed in trust and cannot be used by managers unless a specified catastrophe occurs.
  • Catastrophe bonds involve lower tax costs than equity capital, just as debt financing in general has a tax advantage relative to equity financing.
  • The catastrophe bond structure reduces financial distress costs relative to traditional subordinated debt, because the contingent payments are based on readily observable variables (the occurrence of a catastrophe) and the payments are agreed upon ex ante. Additional debt financing generally involves greater financial distress costs.
  • Catastrophe bonds have a moderating effect on reinsurance prices and prevent reinsurance prices from increasing any faster than they did. By presenting an alternative to traditional reinsurance, the development of cat bonds has forced reinsurers to become more competitive with pricing.
  • Investing in catastrophe bonds could be recommended since they have presumably low or zero correlation with other currently traded assets and are therefore a promising instrument for portfolio enhancement. Also, cat bonds have attractive risk/return characteristics, especially for those large, sophisticated investors they are designed for, such as mutual funds/investment advisors, proprietary/hedge funds, and (re)insurers.
  • Returns on catastrophe bonds are proven to be less volatile than either stocks or bonds.

Disadvantages

  • The use of catastrophe bonds is hindered by regulatory constraints that generally require that the bonds be issued by an offshore special purpose vehicle. As a result, catastrophe bonds can involve substantial transactions costs. Transaction costs indeed represent approximately 2 percent of the total coverage provided by a catastrophe bond (for example, $2 million for a security providing $100 million in coverage). These costs include: underwriting fees charged by investment banks, fees charged by modelling firms to develop models to predict the frequency and severity of the event that is covered by the security, fees charged by the rating agencies to assign a rating to the securities, and legal fees associated with preparing the provisions of the security and preparing disclosures for investors. The price of a reinsurance contract would not typically include such additional fees.
  • Others institutions avoid purchasing catastrophe bonds altogether because it would not be cost-effective for them to develop the technical capacity to analyze the risks of securities so different from the securities in which they currently invested.
  • Catastrophe bonds are available only to institutional investors.
  • The market in cat bonds generally suffers from lower levels of liquidity relative to mainstream bonds.
  • The dramatic recent growth in the catastrophe bond market has in turn spurred the launch of some new insurance related businesses which could potentially undermine the long term growth prospects of the cat bond market.

Written: 2011 October
References:

Inclusion of Airline Emissions by European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) triggers International Law Dispute

The brewing international controversy of airline emissions being included in the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) highlights one of the risks of the EU unilaterally imposing a carbon market on its member countries while China, US and other major economies do not have their own carbon markets.

The Law

The European initiative, effective January 1, 2012, involves folding aviation into the six-year-old emissions trading system, in which polluters can buy and sell a limited quantity of permits, each representing a ton of carbon dioxide. The law requires airlines to account for their emissions for the entirety of any flight that takes off from — or lands at — any airport in the EU bloc. While airlines landing or taking off in Europe are included in the EU ETS beginning January 1, 2012, they do not have to start paying anything until April 2013.

The goal of this European initiative is to speed up the adoption of greener technologies at a time when air traffic, which represents about 3 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, is growing much faster than gains in efficiency.

Consequences of the Law

Airlines will have to buy 15 percent of their emissions certificates at auction. Carbon emissions from planes will initially be capped at 97 percent of the 2004-2006 levels. The emissions rules apply from the moment an aircraft begins to taxi from the gate, either en route to or from a European airport, and they cover emissions for the flight from start to finish — not just the portion that occurs in European airspace.

Why the EU went ahead with the Law

Governments and airlines have been in negotiations for more than a decade over the creation of a global cap-and-trade system under the auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organization, an arm of the United Nations. The organization’s 190 member states passed a resolution in 2010 committing the group to devising a market-based solution, though without a fixed timetable.
Impatient with the pace of those talks, the European Commission moved ahead with its own plan, which was passed two years ago with the support of national governments and the European Parliament.

Airline arguments

Some 26 countries, including China, Russia and the United States, formally showed their dissatisfaction with the European system — a move that heralds a possible commencement of a formal dispute procedure at the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a U.N. agency that handles global aviation matters. They have questioned whether this EU directive is invalid. Their arguments include the following:

  1. Why the requirements apply to emissions from the entire flight, not just the portion that occurs within EU airspace?
  2. In applying its environmental legislation to aviation activities in third countries' airspace and over the high seas, the E.U. has violated fundamental and well-established principles of customary international law.
  3. The EU's actions infringe on the notion that each nation has sovereignty over its territory, a universally recognized principle of international law.
  4. By acting unilaterally, the European Union also breached international obligations that require such matters to be resolved by consensus under the auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a U.N. agency that handles global aviation matters.

In fact, China recently announced that its carriers would be forbidden to pay any charges under the European emissions system without Beijing’s permission.

EU Response to China and the other countries

The EU posits that the ETS is not a charge or a tax but a cap-and-trade system. Its defense includes the following claims:

  1. The purpose of our legislation is to reduce emissions, not make money.
  2. Including aviation in the ETS is "fully consistent with international law" because the EU is not seeking to extend its authority outside of its airspace.
  3. However, given the complaints of China and other countries, the EU could suspend parts of a new law requiring airlines to account for their greenhouse gas emissions if countries were to make clear progress this year toward establishing a global emissions control system.

Written: 2012 February
References:

Why was there an over-allocation of allowances in the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS)?

One reason why there was an over-allocation of allowances in the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) was because of national self-preservation. The EU gave its member states the authority to determine their specific allocation of allowances. In the name of protecting national economic self-interest, the member states over-allocated allowances to themselves, especially France, Germany and Italy. With no ability to bank allowances into the second phase because of their expiration dates, the allowance price of a Phase I allowance dropped to zero in 2007.

Written: 2012 February
Source: PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC). (2009). Carbon Taxes vs. Carbon Trading: Pros, cons and the case for a hybrid approach

What are the two main conditions that make emissions trading systems feasible in the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS)?

Condition 1 - the participants covered by the program must be sufficiently varied for there to be potential gains from trading allowances. If all firms were the same, then they would all face the same abatement costs and so they would all be either net buyers or net sellers. Hence no trade would occur. In the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), the coverage includes power plants and five major industrial sectors (including oil, iron and steel, cement, glass, and pulp and paper) that together produce nearly half the EU’s CO2 emissions.

Condition 2 - there should be a sufficient number of polluters included in the scheme in order to ensure a reasonably liquid market. This increases the amount of trades that occur, hence allowing a clear price signal to emerge. In turn, this reduces the uncertainty that participants face when making long-term investment decisions because the expected gains from investing to abate are much clearer. Furthermore, the risk of any one participant holding extensive market power, which would restrict trading, is reduced. In the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), approximately 12,000 facilities in the 25 EU member states are covered.

In successfully meeting these two conditions, the EU ETS’ massive scale and breadth has enabled it to build a very robust emissions trading market in a short period of time. For example, in 2007, over 100 million allowances per month were traded. Moreover, rates of compliance amongst participants were encouragingly high.

Written: 2012 February
Source: PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC). (2009). Carbon Taxes vs. Carbon Trading: Pros, cons and the case for a hybrid approach”